Sam Tripoli critiques stimulus bills as a "wet dream for authoritarian politicians" fueling government overreach, advocating homeschooling to avoid indoctrination and physical gold to hedge against inflation. He argues the non-aggression principle complicates human rights regarding low cognitive capacity versus fetuses while defending voluntary discrimination over forced integration. Tripoli dismisses concerns about Rand Paul's COVID test as petty compared to massive wealth transfers, warns that suspending habeas corpus sets terrifying precedents for future shutdowns, and claims hip-hop serves as an anti-straight white male power game that receives a pass for offensive content unlike other comedians. Ultimately, the episode suggests current policies exacerbate authoritarian control while cultural double standards persist. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hope You Are Enjoying It00:04:44
Fill her up!
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gash Digital Network.
Tear your host.
Games to it.
Hey, what's going on, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
Hope everybody's doing okay.
Hope you're getting through this whole thing as best you can.
We are now a couple weeks into this lockdown in many areas of the country.
Lots been happening.
Stimulus bills, galore, bailouts, galore, wet dream for authoritarian politicians.
And yeah, and I also think that if you're like me, a lot of us have now started to have some people who we know catch the coronavirus.
So that's been, it's been, all of this, I think, has been challenging for a lot of people.
And as I've said before on the show, I'm very fortunate to be doing okay.
And I know some people are not doing okay during all of this.
So if you're one of those people, you know, I wish you the best of luck.
And I hope you can do what you have to do to get through this.
Okay, so I'm alone today.
No guest.
And I figured for today, we would continue with the great AMA.
This will be part two of the great AMA.
I got this thread of questions from the part of the problem inner circle pulled up.
And I'll start going through that and try to take some more of them and answer as many as I can on today's show.
And then I guess, you know, periodically every week or two weeks, I'll just keep doing one of these and go through it.
You know, I'm trying in the current situation that we're all in.
I figured, well, look, I mean, I'm trapped as we all are to some degree.
And I have podcasting equipment with me.
So I know a lot of people are off and home and kind of looking for more content.
So I'm going to do my best to put out a good amount of content.
I've been trying to do that.
So I hope you guys are enjoying it.
Of course, in addition to our show, I also, as we talked about with Robbie the Fire, if that episode was just released, I did Jimmy Doers podcast.
I also just did Jen.
I did her podcast, Jen Monroe, who is married to Pete Quinones.
So I just did her show.
We had a great conversation.
I did Sam Tripoli's show.
The Tinfoil Hat podcast.
That was real fun.
They've all been great.
So, you know, and of course, I've been putting out bonus episodes of this podcast in addition to our regular lineup.
So just trying to keep cranking them out.
Obviously, stand-up comedy has been basically completely shut down across the country.
So I haven't been able to have that outlet for a little while.
So I guess it makes sense to double down on this one.
So anyway, I hope you guys are enjoying it.
If there are any other suggestions that you guys have for guests or topics or anything like that, please let me know.
Happy to consider it because I'm, you know, just trying to keep giving you guys as much content as I can in these insane times that we live in.
Of course, I think, as everybody who listens to the show knows, it was pretty cool that we got Thomas Massey on the last episode, or the one before the Rob the Fireside Chat.
So, yeah, that was pretty cool.
And I thought we had a real interesting conversation.
So, all right, let's jump in to the questions.
Or let's jump back in.
All right.
Jonathan asks, so far the virus seems to be impacting us down here in the Florida Keys less.
How about buying a house down here?
I can help you with that.
Take The Money For UBI00:08:17
I don't know.
I don't know about that one.
What's the price of real estate down there in the Florida Keys?
I don't know.
You guys got other things to worry.
I got to worry about hurricanes every year.
I don't know about that.
I don't think I'm quite ready to move that far away.
I think I'm going to have to inch myself out of New York City.
We'll see, though.
I'll keep it in mind.
All right, Nick writes, when are you going on Sam Tripley's podcast?
He mentioned it was happening soon.
Yes, that already happened.
It's up wherever you find tinfoil hat.
I went on.
We had a great, great time.
Really enjoyed it.
Patrick wrote thoughts on the proposed stimulus plan.
Now, some of these questions are a little bit old because I asked for them like a week and a half ago.
So yeah, the stimulus plan is out, and I have given you my thoughts on it many times.
I mean, I don't know what the numbers are exactly.
It's something like, you know, $60,000 in debt for each household and like a couple thousand dollars you get in cash.
If that's not the perfect description of government, I don't know what is.
Here, listen, we, you know, we gave you a couple thousand dollars and we only had to borrow $60,000 from you in order to do it.
So whatever little crumbs they give you is going to be nothing compared to how much they cost you ultimately.
And of course, that's because the taxpayer has to bear the burden of all of the bailouts.
You know, I know I've talked about this ad nauseum for the entire history of the show, but it's really, it comes down to this.
It's this simple, right?
Government can't give you anything because government doesn't have anything.
Government doesn't produce anything.
They don't, you know, there's nothing, they don't have anything.
All they can do is take is take from you.
Now, there's three ways in which government can acquire money.
So they can either tax you directly or they can borrow money or they can print money.
So obviously, when they tax you, they are forcibly taking your money from you.
Okay.
So that's taking from you.
When they borrow money, it's just a promise note to tax you later.
So, okay, we'll borrow money.
So that just means later, either you later or your kids or your grandkids, but later it's going to be taxed.
Or they can print money, in which case they devalue everybody's currency.
So in effect, taking from you.
So all government can do, any one of these options is taking from the taxpayers or from the general population, not just the taxpayers, future taxpayers, or just people who work, you know, who don't pay taxes or work under the table or don't make enough to pay taxes, you know, whatever.
So they just take, they take from the American people.
And everything they do has to, by its very nature, cost you something.
Resources aren't free or they're not infinite.
And so that's what they're doing.
So they're taking way more from the American people than they're giving them.
And of course, just slipping in every little piece of pork that they possibly can to give handouts to their cronies.
And so that's the simulus plan.
It's a goddamn nightmare.
And of course, the bigger, the worse.
And this is the biggest one in history.
So it's god-awful.
God-awful, Patrick.
All right.
Justin said, Justin writes, thoughts on the virus scare impacting the homeschooling movement.
I think that's something we've touched on a little bit.
I think no question it's going to have an impact, right?
It's going to have an impact, and a lot more parents will be trying out homeschooling, at least for a period.
And God, man, I hope if there is any silver lining in all of this, maybe that's one of them, that some more people start homeschooling their kids.
You know, instead of letting the government indoctrinate your kids, maybe educate them yourselves.
And even if it's not the government, I mean, some of these private schools, I'm not too pleased with the job they do either.
So yeah, I think if this does, it'll certainly have an impact.
I don't know what exactly the effect will be, but let's hope that more people, let's hope more of the people who you want to be homeschooling their kids end up homeschooling their kids.
And if you're in that situation, you know, check out the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum.
It's excellent.
All right.
Braden writes, should I dump cash and buy stuff to combat inflation?
Or do I need cash right now to make it through the uncertainty?
Okay, well, you would probably know better than me if you need cash right now.
If you need cash right now, just if you're in a position where you're like, I need cash to get through the next few weeks, then yeah, you shouldn't really be investing in anything.
Keep cash and get yourself through this crisis.
You know, you should always have a little bit of cash reserve, a little bit of cash reserves just for a short-term emergency.
That's the best.
I mean, I recognize that not everybody's in a position to be able to do that, but you should, if you can, always have that available.
But if you're talking about like an investment portfolio, look, again, you know, maybe don't take investment advice from a comedian.
That may not be the best path, but I would say it's certainly wise to have some of your money in physical precious metals.
I think that's definitely a good idea.
This inflation is, it may not hit tomorrow or the day after, but it's coming.
And yeah, I think gold and silver, physical gold and silver, that's what I recommend.
I know I'll get shit from my fucking Bitcoin people out there, but I just don't, you know, I don't know enough to confidently say like, yeah, I think you should have some Bitcoin.
I just don't know.
But like, I love the potential implications of Bitcoin or just cryptocurrencies in general.
But I don't know that it's a great investment.
Maybe it is.
Maybe it's the best investment ever.
I just don't know.
But I think precious metals is a good, a really solid hedge against inflation.
So if you have money to invest, if you have $100,000 sitting in your account and you're like, well, I'm going to keep 10,000 in cash, which I think is not a bad idea of the other 90K that you invest, to me, it would seem smart to have like 20% of it in precious metals.
But again, maybe talk to a professional.
Go give Peter Schiff a call.
See what he thinks.
All right.
This is a name that I can't make out because it's in some type of different language.
Okay, it says about the UBI that's being proposed.
If it goes through, should libertarians take the checks or not?
Yeah, like, I'm fine with taking the checks.
Do whatever you think is right.
I mean, hey, if you can, if you can manage to, you know, if you don't need the money and maybe you could give it to a good cause or help somebody else out with that, I think that's fine.
But if you need the money, take the money and spend it.
I don't think there's any problem with that.
Like I was saying before, everything the government does is robbing from people.
And so if you, you know, certainly if you're like a net taxpayer, I have no problem with you getting a little bit of your money back.
I understand someone can give me shit that it's not technically your money, right?
Like it's different money.
But if I don't know, like if somebody robbed you and then you get to their house, you know, they robbed you of $100 and you get to their house and you see $100 laying around and you took it and you were like, well, I'm taking my $100 back.
I personally don't really have a moral problem with that.
And you could say like, well, that's not your $100.
That's someone else's $100.
It's like, yeah, well, money's fungible and they took $100 from me.
So, you know, it's not as if this is a legitimate battle between the rightful owner getting it back or not.
Human Argumentation Differences00:14:29
It's the criminal or you.
So yeah, I'd say take the money.
And if you need it and it can help you and your family get through, I just, I don't see any moral issue about that.
I don't think there's anything libertarians should do.
It depends on the situation you're in.
And maybe if you're in a situation where you can do something great with the money, then sure, go do that.
Why not?
Okay.
Jared says, have you thought about getting Gavin McGinnis on the show anytime soon?
I would certainly be down.
I'd love to have Gavin on.
I love Gavin.
I've always liked Gavin a lot.
I invited Gavin on the show several times back in the day, like we were a much smaller show at the time.
But I invited him on several times and he's always like, yeah, yeah, we'll do that.
And it just kind of never ended up happening.
And then I think Gavin changed his number at some point.
You know, I might be misremembering this.
I'm pretty sure I tried to call Gavin.
I couldn't get through to him.
I tried to text him or something.
I think he changed his number at some point and I don't have his new number.
So I don't know.
I don't know how to get in touch with Gavin, but I'd actually love just to talk to him.
It's been a long time.
I'd love to just catch up with that dude.
But yeah, I'd fucking absolutely be down to have him on the show.
All right, let's take a quick moment.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which of course is Heshy Socks, which as all of you who listen know are my favorite socks.
I own so many pairs of them.
I am wearing a pair right now as we record this show.
And my feet are feeling pretty nice.
And the brand new collection of Heshi Socks has been released.
They're beautiful.
New styles, new colors, the same amazing feel.
For those of you guys who haven't heard me rant about Heshy Socks before, if you're tired of your feet hurting in dress shoes after a long day of work, Hessisocks.com will solve that problem for you.
Most fashion and dress socks are expensive.
They're poorly constructed and they provide zero protection, but not Heshy Socks.
Hessy socks are cushioned in the heel, foot, and toe.
They have arch support in the center so your feet don't slosh around in your shoes.
They're made with breathable Pima cotton and they're antimicrobial so they kill the stink.
And best of all, they're designed to stay up so there's no more tugging at your socks all day long.
Anyway, go to Heshisocks.com.
That's H-E-S-H-Isocks.com.
Enter the promo code problem30 and you're going to get 30% off your entire order.
They've got fashion, basic, ankle socks, anything you need.
Heshisocks.com promo code problem30 will give you 30% off the best pair of socks you've ever had.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right.
Braden again writes, you need to have Sam Tripoli, Tim Poole, and Jimmy Dore all on separately, of course, but they'd all make a great episode.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I'd be down to do every one of those.
I'm going to invite Jimmy Doron to the show.
I'm going to reach out to him.
Maybe I'll reach out to him later today, but I was literally just thinking about that.
I'd love to have him on.
I had a great time on his show.
And yeah, I think that would be a great part of the problem.
So I would love to have him on.
So yeah, we'll see what happens with that.
I'll try my best.
And as far as Tim Poole goes, I don't, like, I've never met Tim and I don't know him.
I don't like have a contact for him or anything.
But, you know, if people want to try to make that happen, I'd certainly be down to have him on as well.
I think he's an interesting dude as well.
So sure.
All right.
Mike writes, ideal libertarian cabinet.
And would you or Tom be opposed to being in a cabinet position?
Oh, geez.
I mean, I'd really rather just do stand-up and podcast, but what the hell would I do in a cabinet?
Would I be a press secretary or something like that?
I could, that, you know, actually, that might be kind of fun.
Now I'm now look at me.
I'm talking myself into it.
All right, I would do that.
Well, it would have to be for the right president.
It would have to be for someone who cared.
But if you're saying ideal libertarian cabinet, so you realize I'd be putting people in positions that I would ultimately want to get rid of altogether.
But I would, if we're going like the departments and stuff like that, let's see.
I would make Ron Paul the Secretary of Defense.
I mean, I guess Ron Paul could just be everyone.
No, I'll make Scott Horton the Secretary of Defense.
I'll make, let's see.
I'll make Bob Murphy the Treasury Secretary.
I'll make Jim Grant the Fed chairman.
This is an interesting one.
I don't know.
I'll have to think about some more after that.
There's a few.
How does that sound?
Tom Woods will be Secretary of State.
I don't know.
There you go.
Basically, any of these people at any of the positions would be good.
So I don't know.
I'd have to think about it a little bit more.
Jake writes, abolish the FDA.
Indeed.
Not really a question, but I wholeheartedly agree.
And that's actually, you know, it's just three words you said there, but that's actually a really good point that libertarians should be making more.
You know, I should be saying that more often.
That's the libertarian lesson we've learned from all this.
Abolish the FDA.
Get rid of that goddamn thing.
It's nothing but rules slowing people down.
And it's costing human lives.
So absolutely.
Okay.
Austin, do you feel that the NAP non-aggression principle should apply to all animals?
And does the topic correlate with a pro-life position?
If cognitive capacity is part of the equation, where do humans with less cognitive ability stand?
Yeah, okay.
So that's right.
So I think that it's unrelated to me to the abortion question because that's really a question of humanity.
Where does human life begin?
And yes, we have, I don't believe that the non-aggression principle should apply to animals.
I think it was Murray Rothbard who said once that animals should deserve rights as soon as they ask for them.
And of course, that is, you know, it's kind of tongue-in-cheek, and it is playing to what you said about cognitive capacity.
But I think that we are different species and we have different capabilities.
It is a different situation.
Human beings, human action is different than animal action.
Human argumentation is different.
Animals don't argue.
They don't have philosophy.
They don't have thoughts like this.
Now, within the human species, you're right.
There are some people who are not, you know, do not have cognitive ability.
And there's a real legitimate question about, you know, does somebody who's in a vegetative state have any natural rights?
I don't know.
You know, I see the dangers in the slippery slope of saying they don't.
But at the same time, I don't know on a purely philosophical level, I don't know.
You know, it's an interesting question.
However, with the abortion, it's completely different because even if you're going to say that a fetus doesn't have the same cognitive capacity that, you know, children or adults do, they have the potential to have that.
So now you're dealing with something, it's more like a situation where, you know, if someone was in a coma for five days, but you know they're going to wake up out of it and be right back to normal, do they still have rights in that coma?
And I would say, of course, absolutely they do.
You know, you can't just kill someone.
It's like, oh, this guy's sleeping or something.
So, hey, he doesn't have the same cognitive capacity that he has when he's awake.
Well, he doesn't lose his rights.
He's about to be awake in a few hours.
So, yeah, I think it's different.
But no, in terms of animals, I mean, I don't know.
I think that if human beings, you know, the animals would hunt us pretty damn quickly if we didn't have this cognitive capacity.
So I don't have any problem with us, you know, surviving by killing animals or violating their non-aggression, you know, violating the NAP toward animals, which, you know, again, I don't consider a NAP violation, but I do think there's an argument to, you know, like aside from the non-aggression principle, just an argument to like not being shitty to animals, not hurting animals if you don't need to.
But that's kind of separate.
Okay.
Robert writes, what would a massive run on the banks look like?
That's interesting.
It's really hard to picture in 2020.
I just can't envision a situation where the Federal Reserve would let that happen.
So in other words, I think it doesn't happen.
And what it looks like is massive inflation.
I just really can't imagine that they would allow runs on the bank.
But if enough people were pulling their money out of the banks, I could see them clamping down on that.
And I mean, look at all the stuff that's going on right now.
Tell you when you're allowed to leave your house, what business can and can't open, whether you're allowed to have people in your restaurant or just give takeout and delivery stuff like that.
I don't think at this point, is it really beyond the reasonable imagination to say that they'd be like, oh, you can only take $200 a week out or $300 a week out of your bank account or whatever it may be?
I don't know.
Doesn't seem so crazy to me.
So, yeah, I think that's very possible, but who the hell knows?
Okay, Corey writes, does the prospects of secession look more grim now that local governments are complying with federal guidelines in regards to forced quarantines?
Hmm.
Yeah, that's an interesting question.
I hadn't really thought about that at all.
You know, yeah, maybe it does.
You know, I mean, I don't think the prospects of secession right around the corner are very bright.
But when the final, you know, when the final, I don't know, you know, when this whole thing really kind of comes due, when the real collapse ends up coming, that's when you might see the prospects of secession increase.
But yeah, I think they probably have, in a crisis like this, taken a back seat and nobody's thinking about that.
Whereas even just, you know, three months ago, with the culture war and shit like that, it seemed more and more like at least it was an argument that more people were willing to hear out.
But now with this shit, I don't think anybody's, or at least anybody besides us, is thinking about that at the moment.
So, you know, we will see.
All right.
Anthony writes, Dr. Kyle Varner. started taking shots at Rand Paul for getting a COVID-19 test and is calling for him to resign, ignoring two House members who were previously tested and found positive, which gets shared by Comrade Sarwak.
How can the Liberty Movement stop eating its own?
Oh, yeah.
Well, you know, there's a lot of, you know, say the Liberty Movement eating its own or whatever, but oftentimes it is by very irrelevant people and it doesn't really mean anything.
So I don't see Rand Paul resigning from this.
And I don't really know.
I mean, you know, as far as Sarwak sharing this stuff, I, you know, I don't really know what the hell that guy's deal is.
But like I said previously, I'm kind of trying to move on and who cares?
He's not seeking re-election.
Let's just, let's just fucking move on and let him be as irrelevant as he always would have been, you know, as he always was and will be.
That's it.
I really don't know what else to say about that.
You know, a lot of times, you know, I don't know if he's trolling or he really believes this stuff or what, but who cares?
It's like, whatever, Nick Sarwak, best of luck to you.
Best of luck to you and your family going forward.
Do whatever it is you're going to go do.
And that's how I feel about a lot of the, you know, whatever, the loser brigade and fucking all these people who are just, you know, very irrelevant and arguing in bad faith.
And if they are arguing in good faith, they're just making really, really stupid points.
It's like, whatever.
And I just kind of, at this point, I'm just like, yeah, pat him on the head.
Okay.
I'm proud of you.
Keep it moving.
But yeah, that's ridiculous.
Rand Paul, you know, I mean, look, maybe he got a test that he wouldn't have otherwise got if he wasn't a senator.
You know, that's quite possible.
He, you know, he had a fucking punctured lung last year.
I think that's why he was concerned and why he wanted to get the test.
But if we're going to be outraged about, you know, perks that senators get, is this really the one that someone who did have the coronavirus received a test that let him know he has the coronavirus and therefore he won't, you know, like spread it around to some innocent person because of that?
I mean, he's not always in the Senate.
You know, he goes out into the real world.
That's where he might meet an innocent person at one point.
So, yeah, I just, of all the perks that senators get, this is the time, especially living through the, you know, the largest robbery of the American people, the largest transfer of wealth from the working class and the middle class to the politically connected and corporate special interests in history.
We're going to sit here and have a problem with Rand Paul getting a test.
It just seems kind of petty to me.
And my guess would be that there's some other stuff going on there.
Like, you know, this was just an excuse to try to hit Rand Paul.
But that's just my guess.
Who the hell knows?
Jonah writes, will you divorce your wife and marry me so I can move out of this hellhole known as Canada?
No, I will not.
And I'm sorry.
Suspending Speedy Trial Rights00:03:22
I wish you the best of luck.
But I love my wife very much.
And she's the mother of my daughter.
So we're going to ride this marriage thing out.
But good luck in getting out of Canada.
All right.
Toby writes, expansion of government power being discussed, including suspension of habeas corpus during national emergencies.
Well, yeah, this shit is downright terrifying.
And the slippery slope implications of what we're doing right now are what's really terrifying.
Like, even if you were to say, like, if you start from the premise of being like, this virus is that bad, you know, this is this is really, it's worth it to take these measures, okay?
Let's even grant, forget all the government failures, those are over.
Now we're at this point, and what are we going to do?
And even if you got to the point, like, just from like some utilitarian, you know, argument that you said, well, the shutdown is better, even though it's causing all of this damage, even though 3 million plus, 3.2 million or whatever it was, people just filed for unemployment.
And probably hundreds of thousands, if not like over a million small businesses, are going to be crushed by this.
And the prospects of entering a depression are looking more and more real.
But you say, you know what?
That's all worth it because it would just be so bad.
There'd be so much death from the coronavirus if we didn't do that.
Let's just say, I'm not saying I believe that.
Honestly speaking, I'm not completely sure.
But let's grant, just for the sake of argument, that that's true.
You could grant all of that and still think this is a terrifying precedent to set.
I mean, I know I talked about it on one of these shows here.
I can't even remember because I've been doing other people's podcasts too.
I think it was on part of the problem.
But I was talking about how, you know, if the coronavirus is a national emergency enough that that justifies this, well, tell me from the democratic point of view, how climate change isn't a national emergency.
You know, they're saying this is the existential threat that's going to kill everything on the planet.
So shouldn't we be doing these shutdowns more often for that?
Now, the other thing I'm thinking about a lot is like, what are we going to do?
Let's just say, you know, we come out of all of this, okay, and, you know, in six months, maybe this is all over and it's just in the past.
And the virus doesn't mutate and come back next winter.
And that's it.
You know, coronavirus is gone and we're back to the world.
Well, what do we do in a year, in two years, when there's another like swine flu or Ebola level thing?
Is the knee-jerk reaction of the government going to be to shut everything down again?
You know, I mean, there's who knows how this is all going to play out.
But it's a the idea that they're talking about, I talked about recently on the podcast, you know, suspending the right to a speedy trial.
That was happening in New York.
And, you know, the suspension of habeas corpus, things like that, I, you know, I, at this point, I wouldn't be shocked to see it.
And it might, it, uh, this, this might be very real.
So we'll see.
It's a scary thought.
Discrimination And Honest Views00:09:34
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Blue Chew.
If you like sex, you're going to love Blue Chew, and you can grab them at bluechew.com.
Blue Chew offers men a performance enhancement for the bedroom.
And at bluechew.com, you can get the first chewables with the same active ingredients as Viagra and Sialis.
Chewables can work faster than pills, up to twice as fast.
And the chewables from BlueChew.com can be taken on a full or empty stomach.
The online physician consultant is free, so it's cheaper than those other two.
And it only takes a few minutes to connect with your bluechew.com affiliated physician.
If you qualify, you get prescribed online quickly.
That means there's no in-person doctor visit, no awkward conversation, no waiting in line at a pharmacy.
It ships directly to your door in discrete packaging.
The chewables from bluechew.com are prescribed online by a doctor and made in the USA.
Blue Chew gives you the confidence in the bedroom every time you and your partner will love it.
And here's a great deal for you guys.
If you visit bluechew.com, you get your first order free if you use the promo code problem.
You just pay $5 shipping, but the order is free.
That's B-L-U-E-C-H-E-W.com promo code problem.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right, Jesse writes, private property is exclusionary and discriminatory by its very nature, with liberals, conservative, and libertarians alike embracing anti-discrimination with respect to non-white, hetero-Christian, etc.
How do we expect to foster a culture that respects property rights when a fundamental aspect is forbidden?
Okay, that's an excellent question.
And I actually think your question kind of answers itself, right?
Which I think is kind of what you were going for.
Like, how do we expect to have a libertarian culture or a culture that respects property rights, as you put it, with this fundamental aspect forbidden?
Well, we shouldn't and we won't.
And that is a huge part of the reason why we haven't for a very long time.
Look, discrimination has been made into a dirty word.
It's not.
We all discriminate all the time based off lots of different factors.
And even in many areas, racial discrimination or something like that, I mean, is not necessarily wrong.
You know, people can have a preference on who they want to marry, who they want to date.
And now everybody, I guess it's weird because that's a sexual preference, people in general tend to be okay with that.
Like if some, you know, if some black dude is like, well, I want to, you know, I want to marry a black woman, no one really seems to have much of a problem with that.
And even if some white guy is like, oh, you know, I kind of, I'm more attracted to white women or something like that.
Most people kind of give you, okay, yeah.
Well, obviously you have a right to discriminate on who you have sex with.
And it's not like that evil if you're more or less attracted to one group.
Because I think, at least, I mean, maybe there's some, obviously there are some people, but they're like real batshit crazy.
But most reasonable people would be like, well, yeah, because it's not even like a choice you're making necessarily who you're attracted to.
That's just kind of how you feel.
Like what gets you going?
But if you can see that that's okay, I mean, I don't know.
Maybe, maybe it's just me, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with somebody saying, well, this is who I want to marry.
This is who I want to be friends with.
This is who I want to hang around with.
I mean, you know, if that's your feeling, you're not hurting anybody else.
It's just who you want to be with, then go for it.
And this is a big problem, as you're kind of getting at in your question, a big problem that libertarians have is that you can't, if you look at the world, it is, it is blatantly obvious.
I mean, from a middle school cafeteria, it's obvious.
But if you just look at the way people group together in neighborhoods, in churches, you know, every aspect of life, if given the liberty to choose, many people will choose to associate with people they want to associate with.
And as long as they're not hurting anybody else or violating anybody else's rights, I don't think there's a big outrage there.
Look, I'm not against like saying like, oh, don't be shitty to other people.
And, you know, it's kind of stupid to judge a book by the cover and things like that.
There's a lot more variance within groups than between groups and all that stuff.
It's all true.
But there's just nothing evil about somebody discriminating as long as they're not hurting anybody else.
And the truth is that from the legal perspective, I think you're far better off allowing people to discriminate than not.
I just think it causes way more problems.
And even if it is something as, you know, like whatever the classic example of a horrible thing would be, like that somebody would say, well, they'll hang up, you know, whites-only signs or, you know, like something out of Jim Crow or something like that, which of course was a law of the land.
Let's not get it twisted, but even if on a libertarian, voluntary basis, it's like, I don't know.
I think you end up causing a lot more problems by forcing integration than you do by allowing people to voluntarily segregate.
That way, the ones who don't want to, you know, be around people they don't want to be around can go do their own thing.
The ones who do can integrate and do their thing.
And then you don't build up these hostilities.
You don't build up all of these problems.
And you don't have to create a governmental system that violates rights to accomplish it.
So I just think it's a loss on every level.
Like I know I've said this before, but like if there was anyone who would put up a no Jews allowed sign if they were legally allowed to, I'd rather know who those people are and see the goddamn sign.
I'd rather not just be like walking into a business and have no idea that if they were legally allowed to, they'd be like, I don't want you hooknose Jews in here.
You know, like I'd rather know.
And then I'd be like, okay, I'm going to keep my distance from that guy.
And as long as he's not hurting anybody else, it's like, I don't know, have whatever views you want to.
It's fucking your life, man.
And I don't know.
I'm certainly not dying to associate with someone who doesn't want to associate with me.
I'm not like, no, I want the government to force that guy to associate with me.
Anyway, I'm probably going off on a little bit of a tangent here, but you're absolutely right that the very nature of private property is exclusionary.
That's the whole deal with it.
You have the right to not let people on your property.
And if you think about it, that applies to every inch of liberty.
Like the whole very nature of being a free person is you can decide who your friends are.
You can decide what groups to be a part of.
You can decide who you're going to marry.
All of that stuff.
So I agree with you.
You know, it's not just discrimination.
It's also, this is my problem with everyone getting bent out of shape about quote racism.
As I've said many times before, it's just way too broad of a word, which allows way too much.
You know, it's just like anybody can call anything they don't like racist.
And then, you know, it's like, oh my God, you pulled out the boogie word and you're supposed to be this evil person.
And it can be something as benign as someone just basically just being honest.
Like basically, if you go, like if you, if you go to anybody, and I know this from growing up in New York City and living there my whole life, I grew up in Brooklyn.
I've been around a lot of different kinds of people.
And if you talk to black people or Asian people or any other group, and they're not weighed down by this political correctness thing, so they'll just be much more upfront, but they'll be very quick to be like, well, listen, black people are like this and Chinese people are like this and blah, blah, blah.
Everyone's got some views that could fall into this.
And most of the people who fucking who claim to not be, like the, you know, they're the ones who are the, we're going to be the, you know, the warriors against racism.
You're only like three questions away from finding some pretty wild racist shit of their own.
Oftentimes it's just, you know, blatantly anti-white racism.
But all of this stuff, what's beautiful about libertarianism is that you cut down, the non-aggression principle is just, it's perfect for all this.
It cuts right down to the chase.
It's like, no, like racism isn't really the problem.
Aggression is the problem.
If you're being violent to any other group, then okay, we got a major problem.
And they and intentionally, when people evoke discrimination or racism or something like this, they always kind of rely on the backdrop being historical examples of the violation of the non-aggression principle.
So, obviously, with racism, it's like slavery or, you know, Jim Crow laws from the state governments, things like that.
You know, if you're talking about like anti-Semitism, they rely on the backdrop of genocides and pogroms and all type things like this.
So it's like, well, we all know, let's be more precise about what the real problem there was.
And it wasn't someone having wrongthink or someone saying something politically incorrect.
The problem was initiating violence against peaceful people.
But anyway, to answer your question, yes, until we get rid of that, we probably will never be able to really create a culture that fosters respect for property rights.
Watch AOC Doc On Netflix00:04:06
It's a very good question.
All right.
Now, one of you losers go write a fucking blog about me for that one.
Have fun.
Oh, God, I'm lucky no one listens to my enemies.
Which is really funny is that I've, you know, because I've been, I'm in this libertarian space somehow.
Tom Woods was talking about this with me when I was on his show recently, where it's like, I've managed to almost like be friendly with everybody in this libertarian world.
Like I get along with, you know, I love Kennedy.
I adore her.
I love her staff and her show.
I get along with everybody at Reason Magazine.
You know, like I see Nick Gillespie all the time at the Soho Forum debates.
We always get along.
I love Matt Welsh.
Like I fucking, you know, he's a good dude.
Me and him have always gotten along.
Like I kind of get along with everybody, even though I'm like a radical anarchist who loves the Mises Institute.
For whatever reason, maybe it's because I'm a comic.
Maybe it's just my personality.
I don't know.
I never really got hate from libertarians until like, you know, the last few months.
And luckily for me, not a one of them are relevant or matter at all.
So I've got that going for me at least.
Okay.
Zach writes, have you watched any good documentaries lately?
If you haven't already, watch the AOC doc on Netflix just so you can have a good laugh in these weird times.
I watched that tiger thing.
I'm not completely done with it yet, but that's been pretty entertaining.
I didn't really love it quite as much as everybody else does, but it's fun.
There's some fucking weird big cat people out there in the world.
I watched that AOC thing back when it first came out, and yes, it was good for a laugh.
She is so phony.
Her whole thing is so just contrived and made up.
But yeah.
Besides that, no, I haven't really had much time for that.
I've been recording a lot.
And, you know, I got a baby.
And then once she goes to sleep, you know, I like watch one or two things.
And there's not that much to do.
And I'm trying to read and keep up on stuff.
So I haven't really seen anything good.
But if you got something to recommend, let me know.
The only shows I've been watching right now is I watch Homeland and The Walking Dead.
I love both of those shows.
And Walking Dead got weird for a few seasons, but I actually have really been enjoying this one.
So that's what I've been doing.
Thoughts on unschooling versus Ron Paul curriculum?
And would you put your child through them or private school?
You know, I'm not 100% made up with my kid yet.
You know, she's only one, so I got a little bit of time to figure that out.
But believe me, I'll let you guys know what we end up what we end up doing.
But yeah, I would much rather put her through the Ron Paul curriculum than through private schools, at least as of right now.
But I don't know.
I'm going to do, you know, that's not a decision I'm going to make lightly.
So I'm going to do a lot of research and probably look at a few private school options.
But we'll see.
All right.
Armin writes, without being overly specific, what part of New Jersey are you hunkered down in?
Not looking to pry, just curious as a lifelong New Jersey resident.
And when you finally move out of the city, what's your ideal situation?
Something completely isolated like Owen, just typical suburban community, or somewhat rural, but still in a town with services and nearby shopping.
You know, I'm kind of figuring all of that out right now.
So, you know, I don't know.
I'm thinking, I'm not going to get into where I am.
I like the I'd rather just that not be known at this exact moment.
But let's just say I'm not super far outside of outside of New York City in Jersey.
I'll say that.
Nick Fuentes Bonus Episodes00:09:22
And in terms of what I'm going to get, you know, me and my wife have been discussing this a lot.
I'm more thinking maybe a little more rural or a little more country and not, excuse me, and not, you know, just like in the suburbs.
But we'll see.
James writes, have you thought about trying to get another regular cable news gig or did your experience at CNN sour you on that?
No, my experience at CNN didn't sour me at all.
I actually, I really loved my experience at CNN.
I miss it sometimes.
Like, I loved, as I'm sure many of you could tell, I loved every bit of, you know, going up against other people and kind of getting those moments.
I loved it.
It was some of my favorite shit.
The only thing that frustrated me about the thing is when I felt like I was being boxed out and like, you know, I can kind of understand why, but I wanted to fucking have more and more of those moments.
To me, it was like when me and SE would, when me and SE would would clash, it would always be like the highest watched videos online and stuff.
And I, from my perspective, I was like, we should be doing this every episode.
Like every episode, we should be having these moments.
But it just seemed like at least, again, like no one ever said this to me.
It's just the sense that I got that it felt like they didn't want to have a lot of those moments.
And I never got that sense from SE.
She seemed to love it, but I just, from the way the show would go, and then I felt like all the topics that I love to talk about, they would stop having me talk about in my last few months there.
So that was, you know, but it wasn't a bad experience.
I loved it.
I liked, you know, I liked the money.
I liked the exposure.
I loved, you know, being on that set and having those things.
So I'd be down to do it.
But it's not really, you know, it's not as simple as just trying to do it.
It's like, who wants to fucking give me that gig?
And, you know, anyway, whatever it is, I'm not like holding my breath for it.
It's fine.
But there was nothing about my experience that would make me not want to do it.
If, you know, Corona, all this craziness aside, someone offered me some shit like that, I'd go fucking jump on it again.
Let's do it.
All right.
Kyle writes, random thought I had the other day.
How come feminists never take issue with super misogynistic rap songs?
Yeah, no, that's a good thought.
I've talked about that before.
In fact, I used to have a bit in my stand-up about it, but never really went anywhere.
I never really worked it out.
But yeah, it's, I mean, it's pretty obvious, right?
Why that doesn't get addressed?
If you did, you know, it's like they'll go after like comedians for saying things that are offensive.
But if you're looking for offensive speech, hip-hop has gotten has plenty for you.
But of course, that's not straight white men.
It's mostly black dudes who are saying that.
So that's, you're going to hear nothing but silence on that because so much of this lefty shit, the feminism, social justice, stuff like that, is not about what they claim it's about.
It's a power game and they're going for power.
And it's, you know, it's an anti-straight white male belief system.
And so they may use whatever else they talk about.
It's really not, that's really not what it's about.
It's not about trans rights.
It's not about, you know, any of these other things.
It's about being anti-straight white male.
And that's why hip-hop gets a pass.
Okay, James writes, why do you think your episode with Nick Fuentes sucked so bad?
And the episode with Michelle Malkin was so good.
I thought it was just because you don't know how to talk to conservatives being temperamentally liberal, but that's clearly not it.
Hmm.
Well, I mean, I don't think the episodes with Nick sucked so bad.
I enjoyed both of the episodes with Nick Fuentes.
And I also enjoyed the episode with Michelle Malkin.
So, you know, I can't really answer that question because I didn't think they sucked.
But if you had, you know, if you'd given me like a reason why you thought they sucked, maybe there'd be some more for me to talk about there.
Or if you had given me why you thought the Michelle Malkin one was good, maybe I could address it more.
I will say that I thought I preferred the Michelle Malkin episode just personally, even though I liked all three of the episodes.
I had Nick on twice and Michelle on once.
I liked it because to me it was there was just something more fascinating about like it's those two come from completely different perspectives, but maybe not currently at the moment.
But Michelle Malkin was somebody who was in Conservatism Inc.
I mean, she was like a FOX NEWS contributor and she was that person, and to see that person now come around, that was to me there was just a lot of interesting you know kind of directions to go with from that to see like, what kind of brought you around to realizing this and what were you wrong about, what were you right about, you know, and and, and I thought she was very candid about a lot of that stuff and and I appreciated that um and so to me that's was part of at least what added, you know, to uh, to that.
As far as the Nick Fuentes episodes, I mean I, you know, anytime I have some of these right-wing people on I, I know I'm gonna get shit on it and I get shit from all different angles.
You know, I get attacked from the left and from the right on those, although I, of course, the attacks from the right are always far less hostile than the attacks from the left.
But I, I really enjoyed those conversations.
I thought they were made for good radio or podcasting and I, I thought that like I thought they were good episodes.
And I always thought I always loved the Owen Benjamin episodes.
I like talking to those guys.
And also, I loved going on Jimmy Doerr's show.
I like talking to them too.
I like talking to people who I think are interesting people, whether they're on the left or the right.
And no matter how much they may deviate from libertarianism, I just, I like talking to interesting people.
And so, you know.
People, you know, what's interesting is that also with the Nick Fuentes episodes that, you know, there'd be a lot of people criticizing them.
But then I'd also get a ton of people who thought they were just like fucking great episodes.
And the numbers, well, at least with Nick Fuentes, I guess it's because he's like, he was real big on YouTube.
So our YouTube numbers would always be bigger on the Nick Fuentes episodes.
But for our show, about 90% of our audience listens to it as a podcast.
About 90% of the audience listens to it, downloads it as a podcast.
About 10% watch on YouTube.
And the Nick Fuentes episodes would always be way bigger on YouTube, but the podcast numbers would be like right around the same.
Whereas the Owen Benjamin episodes would always be bigger all around.
And the Michelle Malkin episode, I think, did pretty good all around.
So I don't know.
You know, some people might think they suck, but yeah, the episodes always seem to do pretty good.
So I kind of got to just go with like how I feel about it.
But yeah, I enjoyed both times I had Nick Fuentes on.
So I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But if you want a better answer to that, maybe give me a little bit more of what you thought was bad about those episodes and what you thought was good about Michelle Malkin.
Maybe you're right.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But to me, I thought they were all good.
All right.
Let's do one more question and then we'll wrap up.
Daniel writes, will you come on Michael to discuss Tommy Boy from a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist perspective?
All right.
I don't know how I would fit that into that perspective.
Although I'm sure we could come up with something, right?
I'm sure that factory was being closed because, you know, some type of regulatory state or cartelization of the banks or something like that, right?
I'm sure there's something there that we could work on.
All right.
That's going to be the show for today.
That is the great AMA part D.
And we'll keep going with these things.
I guess whenever I don't have an interview lined up or something like that, I'll do another one of these AMA shows.
I always enjoy these.
And, you know, I appreciate all you guys for listening.
And again, like I said at the beginning, I hope you guys are doing well, man.
I know it's tough times for a lot of people, but we will all get through this or die from the coronavirus.